summated within the state. Where this rule obtains, a person who steals goods in one state, and sends them into another state by an innocent agent, is guilty of larceny in the latter state, but it is otherwise where they are carried into the other state by an accomplice. If the character of the stolen property has been altered before being brought into the state, it must be described in the indictment in its altered character.10 § 316. Taking in one country and carrying into another, or taking on the high seas. In England it is settled at common law. that the doctrine that stealing goods in one county and carrying them into another is larceny in the latter, does not apply when goods are stolen in one country and carried into another, or where goods are stolen on the high seas and carried into a country, for in such a case the original taking is not a felony of which the common law can take cognizance. This distinction has been recognized by some of our courts where goods have been stolen in a foreign country and brought into one of our states.12 But other courts have refused to recognize it, and have held that an indictment for larceny will lie in the state into which the goods are brought.18 And in many states this is now the rule by statute.14 11 Reg. v. Carr, 15 Cox C. C. 131n; Reg. v. Debruiel, 11 Cox C. C. 207; Rex v. Anderson, 2 East P. C. 772; Butler's Case, 3 Inst. 113, 13 Coke, 53; Rex v. Prowes, 1 Moody C. C. 349. And see Van Buren v. State, 65 Neb. 223, 91 N. W. 201; Strouther v. Com., 92 Va. 789, 22 S. E. 852, 53 Am. St. Rep. 852. 12 Com. V. Uprichard, 3 Gray (Mass.) 434, 63 Am. Dec. 762; Van Buren v. State, 65 Neb. 223, 91 N. W. 201; Stanley v. State, 24 Ohio St. 166, 15 Am. Rep. 604. And see Com. v. White, 123 Mass. 430, 25 Am. Rep. 116; Strouther v. Com., 92 Va. 789, 22 S. E. 852, 53 Am. St. Rep. 852. 13 State v. Underwood, 49 Me. 181, 77 Am. Dec. 254; State v. Barnett, 15 Ore. 77, 14 Pac. 737; State v. Morrill, 68 Vt. 60, 33 Atl. 1070, 54 Am. St. Rep. 870; State v. Bartlett, 11 Vt. 650. 14 See the statutes of the various states and the following cases: California. People v. Staples, 91 Cal. 23, 27 Pac. 523. Missouri. Mo. 453, 51 Montana. Hemmaker v. State, 12 Am. Dec. 172. State v. Kief, 12 Mont. 92, 29 Pac. 654, 15 L. R. A. 722. New York. People v. Burke, 11 Wend. 129. Oregon. State v. Barnett, 15 Ore. 77, 14 Pac. 737. Texas. State v. Morales, 21 Tex. 298; Fernandez v. State, 25 Tex. App. 538, 8 S. W. 667; Carmisales v. State, 11 Tex. App. 474. In Arizona such a statute was held § 317. What law governs. Generally, where property is stolen in one state or country and taken into another, the question whether the offense was larceny is determined by the law of the state in which the prosecution is had.15 But some courts hold that, since the prosecution in the state in which the goods are carried proceeds on the theory that the goods have been stolen, and that there is a continuing trespass, the original taking in the other state or country must have been under such circumstances as to amount technically to larceny under its laws.16 And it is sometimes expressly provided by statute that the stealing must constitute theft in both jurisdictions.17 not to be unconstitutional as attempting to give to the courts of that state extraterritorial jurisdiction, but to be unconstitutional because in its operation it necessarily denied the accused compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, since presumptively such witnesses would be beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and because the accused could not be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, since that would depend on the for eign law. Territory v. Hefley, 4 Ariz. 74, 33 Pac. 618. 15 Alabama. Spencer v. State, 20 Ala. 24; Murray v. State, 18 Ala. 727. California. People v. Staples, 91 Cal. 23, 27 Pac. 523. Kansas. State v. White, 76 Kan. 654, 92 Pac. 829, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 556. Missouri. Hemmaker v. State, 12 Mo. 453, 51 Am. Dec. 172. Oregon. See State v. Barnett, 15 16 The laws of the foreign country are not included among the elements of the crime. Whether the defendant was guilty of stealing the property must first be determined by the laws of the forum, and if he is thus guilty, the guilty possession of the In Com. V. Uprichard, 3 Gray In Stanley v. State, 24 Ohio St. 166, 15 Am. Rep. 604, it is said by way of dictum that it would be necessary to prove the foreign laws to sustain a conviction under such a statute. And see Territory v. Hefley, 4 Ariz. 74, 33 Pac. 618. 17 State v. Morales, 21 Tex. 298; Beard v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 522, 78 S. W. 348; McKenzie v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 568, 25 S. W. 426, 40 Am. St. Rep. 795; Clark v. State, 27 Tex. App. 405, 11 S. W. 374; Fernandez v. State, 25 Tex. App. 538, 8 S. W. 667; Carmisales v. State, 11 Tex. App. 474. § 318. Libel. A libel is committed where, and only where, it is published. According to some of the courts, a person who publishes a libel in one jurisdiction in a newspaper which circulates also in another jurisdiction is liable to indictment in the latter.18 But other courts have held that he can be punished only in the jurisdiction. where the paper is published,19 especially where the circulation in the foreign jurisdiction arises only through the independent acts. of others, without any actual privity or intentional procurement on his part.20 A libel in a letter sent by mail is published where it is posted, and the offense may be prosecuted there,21 especially where the statutes of that state provide that a person may be prosecuted in the state who commits a crime there in whole or in part.22 And according to some courts it may also be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the letter is received.23 § 319. Nuisance. According to the weight of authority, a person who erects or creates a nuisance in one jurisdiction is liable criminally 18 Com. V. Blanding, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 304, 15 Am. Dec. 214; State v. Kountz, 12 Mo. App. 511. A person residing in another state who circulates in Washington a libel on a citizen of that state may be prosecuted there, although the libel is published out of the state, in view of the statute permitting such a prosecution. State V. Piver, 74 Wash. 96, 132 Pac. 858, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 941, Ann. Cas. 1915 A 695. This is true as between counties, where the statute provides that where an offense is committed partly in one county and partly in another it may be punished in either. State v. Huston, 19 S. D. 644, 104 N. W. 451, 117 Am. St. Rep. 970, 9 Ann. Cas. 381. 19 United States v. Press Pub. Co., 219 U. S. 1, 55 L. Ed. 65, 31 Sup. Ct. 212, 21 Ann. Cas. 942; United States v. Smith, 173 Fed. 227; State v. Moore, 140 La. 281, 72 So. 965. 20 As where papers are sold by the publisher at the place of publication to a newsdealer in the ordinary course of trade, and the newsdealer forwards them to other jurisdiction in the regular course of his business. In re Dana, 68 Fed. 886. 21 Mills v. State, 18 Neb. 575, 26 N. W. 354; People v. Bihler, 154 N. Y. App. Div. 618, 139 N. Y. Supp. 819, aff'd 210 N. Y. 592, 104 N. E. 1136; Rex v. Burdett, 4 Barn. & Ald. 175. 22 People v. Bihler, 154 N. Y. App. Div. 618, 139 N. Y. Supp. 819, aff'd 210 N. Y. 592, 104 N. E. 1136. 23 In Rex v. Johnson, 7 East 65, it was held that where a letter containing a libel on the administration of the government, and on certain public officers, was mailed in Ireland, and addressed to and received by a person in England, it was published in England, and indictable there. And see People v. Bihler, 154 N. Y. App. Div. 618, 139 N. Y. Supp. 819, aff'd 210 N. Y. 592, 104 N. E. 1136. in any other jurisdiction in which it takes effect and constitutes a nuisance.24 And this is true as between counties where the statute provides that if an offense is committed partly in one county and partly in another, jurisdiction is in either,25 or that the offense of nuisance shall be held to have been committed in any county whose inhabitants are or have been injured or aggrieved thereby.26 Some courts, however, hold that a prosecution will lie only in the state 27 and county 28 where the nuisance has its situs, although its results may affect the inhabitants of other states or counties. § 320. Perjury and false swearing. Perjury or the making of a false oath must be prosecuted in the county where the oath was taken,29 and subornation of perjury in the county where the suborning takes place.30 Punishing as perjury the making in the state of a false oath or affidavit required or permitted by the laws of another state is not enforcing the criminal law of the latter state, but the crime is committed in the state where the oath is taken.3 31 § 321. Receiving stolen property. Except where the rule has been changed by statute, the offense of receiving stolen property is com 24 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 25, § 37; State v. Lord, 16 N. H. 357. And see Stillman V. White Rock Mfg. Co., 3 Woodb. & M. 538, Fed. Cas. No. 13,446; Thompson v. Crocker, 9 Pick. (26 Mass.) 59. 25 State v. Wabash Paper Co., 21 Ind. App. 167, 48 N. E. 653, 51 N. E. 949; State v. Herring, 21 Ind. App. 157, 48 N. E. 598, 51 N. E. 951, 69 Am. St. Rep. 351; State v. Glucose Sugar Refining Co., 117 Iowa 524, 91 N. W. 794; State v. Smith, 82 Iowa 423, 48 N. W. 727; Com. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 175 Ky. 267, 194 S. W. 345. 26 State v. De Wolfe, 67 Neb. 321, 93 N. W. 746. Such a provision is valid. American Strawboard Co. v. State, 70 Ohio St. 140, 71 N. E. 284. 27 A person who maintains a factory in New Jersey cannot be prosecuted in New York for maintaining a nuisance although fumes, gases and noxious odors from the factory are carried by the wind into the latter state. People v. International Nickel Co., 168 N. Y. App. Div. 245, 153 N. Y. Supp. 295, aff 'g 155 N. Y. Supp. 156, judgment aff'd 218 N. Y. 644, 112 N. E. 1068. Under the compact between New Jersey and New York, the latter state has exclusive jurisdiction of prosecutions for nuisance in obstructing navigation in the Hudson River by placing obstructions below low water mark. State v. Babcock, 30 N. J. L. 29. 28 In re Eldred, 46 Wis. 530, 1 N. W. 175. 29 Eureka County Bank Habeas Corpus Cases, 35 Nev. 80, 145, 126 Pac. 655, 129 Pac. 308. 30 State v. Byam, 54 Iowa 409, 6 N. W. 594. 31 People v. Martin, 175 N. Y. 315, 67 N. E. 589, 96 Am. St. Rep. 628, aff'g 77 N. Y. App. Div. 396, 79 N. mitted where the property is received, and may and must be prosecuted there, rather than in the jurisdiction where the theft was committed.32 In those jurisdictions where it is held that stealing property in one country and carrying it into another does not constitute larceny in the latter, it is also held that if goods are stolen in one country and brought into another, and there received, the offense of receiving stolen goods is not committed in the latter country.34 If goods are stolen in one of the states, or in a territory, and brought into another state, and there received, the offense of receiving stolen goods is committed in the latter, if in that state the bringing into the state of goods stolen in another state is regarded as larceny.35 And the same has been held by some courts to be true even in states where the bringing into the state of goods stolen in another state is not regarded as larceny, if the receiving of stolen goods is made a substantive crime,36 although other courts have held to the contrary.37 If it is larceny to carry into a state goods stolen in another state, and a person steals goods in one state, and sends them by an innocent agent into another, one who receives them from Y. Supp. 340, which rev'd 38 N. Y. 32 United States. United States v. Montgomery, 3 Sawy. 544, Fed. Cas. No. 15,800. California. People v. Stakem, 40 Cal. 599. Georgia. Licette v. State, 75 Ga. 253; O'Neal v. State, 24 Ga. App. 160, 99 S. E. 891. Kansas. State v. Rider, 46 Kan. 332, 26 Pac. 745. Kentucky. Ellison v. Com., 190 Ky. 305, 227 S. W. 458; Klotz v. Cook, 184 Ky. 735, 212 S. W. 917. Nevada. State v. Pray, 30 Nev. 206, 94 Pac. 218. New York. People v. Zimmer, 174 N. Y. App. Div. 470, 160 N. Y. Supp. 459. A statute providing for jurisdiction in either county where a crime is committed in part in different counties, or where the acts or effects occur in two or more counties, does not permit a prosecution in the county where the property was stolen, where receiving stolen prop- 34 Reg. v. Carr, 15 Cox C. C. 131n; Reg. v. Debruiel, 11 Cox C. C. 207. 35 United States V. Mortimer, 1 Hayw. & H. 215, Fed. Cas. No. 15,821; State v. Suppe, 60 Kan. 566, 57 Pac. 106; State v. Stimpson, 45 Me. 608; Com. v. White, 123 Mass. 430, 25 Am. Rep. 116; Com. v. Andrews, 2 Mass. 14, 3 Am. Dec. 17. As to whether the bringing of stolen goods into the state is larceny, see § 314, supra. 36 Egan v. State, 97 Neb. 731, 151 N. W. 237; In re Loomis (Ex parte Sullivan), 84 Neb. 493, 121 N. W. 456, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 750, 18 Ann. Cas. 1024; Curran v. State, 12 Wyo. 553, 76 Pac. 577. 37 Golden v. State, 2 Ga. App. 440, 58 S. E. 557. |